Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

" 3. Commitment by the applicant to provide for offsetting all added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by the development." The staff report states that public facilities are available to the site. Opponents provided substantial amounts of testimony arguing that various public facilities and services are inadequate to serve the increase in population that would occur with approval of the CIR housing. In particular, opponents argue sanitary sewer, storm water, schools, and roads are not adequate to serve the proposed development. Opponents argue that traffic is already congested and dangerous on both sides of the property. According to opponents, the proposed CIR housing would only exacerbate an already serious problem. Opponents also argue that storm water runoff already causes problems for properties near the southwestern corner of the property. According to opponents, the creek in the southwestern corner already floods and the increased impervious surfaces would make the problem worse. Opponents also argue that schools do not have capacity for the additional students that would arrive with the proposed development. If EC 9.724(2)(a) required that all public facilities and services were adequate to serve the proposed use, I might well agree with opponents that the approval criterion was not satisfied. EC 9.724(2)(a), however, does not require that public facilities and services are adequate - merely that they are "available." As the applicant explains in a lengthy history of the CiR ordinances, an earlier version of EC 9.724(2)(a) required that "[p]ublic and private facilities are acequate to meet anticipated demand." (Emphasis added.) After the adequacy requirement resulted in problems for obtaining approvals for CIR housing, the City amended the EC to remove the adequacy requirement so that CTR housing applications could be approved as long as public facilities and services were available to the site rather than requiring that they be adequate. As the applicant further explains, the Planning Commission applied. the version of EC 9.724(2)(a) at issue in the present case in the Woodleaf Village case (CU 95-7) and in response to arguments that public facilities and services were not adequate found that the EC amendments removed the adequacy requirement. The Planning Commission found that public facilities and services were available to the property and imposed conditions of approval to improve some of the public facilities and services that needed improvement due to the project. As the Woodleaf Village case makes clear, the question under EC 9.724(2)(a) is whether public services are available not whether they are adequate. In the present case, even though some of the public facilities and services may be Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4)